The King's Speech Review

There is a stunning moment in The King’s Speech, where we know exactly what is going to happen. Even if the film wasn’t based on a true story, our assumption would still probably be right. I am of course talking about the pre-Word War II speech of King George VI (Colin Firth), a man condemned to speaking with a stammer. As for the aforementioned moment, despite knowing the outcome I was still completely mesmerized. Outside of the King’s speaking box, we see a group of associates and family, including Firth’s wife Queen Elizabeth. (Helena Bonham Carter) She is stiff, pale, anticipating, hoping and mentally begging that the sound produced is not an awkward cut of stutters and syllables. Oh how embarrassing that would be! Not just for me, but for dear George!  I know your majesty, I feel the same way. I sat there, completely stiff, worrying about a character I cared for, and worrying that I’ll be embarrassed on his behalf for disappointing the intent audience. I can’t think of any scientific explanation as to how I felt this way, though I can hazard a guess that it just comes down to plain good filmmaking. A host of good decisions energize the film, decisions about, focus, style and treatment of its history. The decisions made with the climactic sequence of Firth’s speech all work wonderfully, and as I watched the film, I came to respect the choices more and more. They didn’t decide to simply play the original voice recording (I’m fairly certain that Firth is talking) over footage of Britain. There is footage of Britain’s reaction, people pouring into the streets, and listening with so much intent and silence that it seems as if their lives depend just as much on their King’s words as it does on the deployment of troops. We cut back to see Firth’s fearful expression, and his therapist (Geoffrey Rush) keeping a warming expression, whilst carefully mouthing the words and breathing signals. It is as charming a way to conclude a buddy relationship picture as any of the recent whimsical animated films, while also as enervating as any recent action-thrillers.

 I had two distinct fears with ‘the King’s Speech’, one was an either dull, or contrived ending. No worries there. The other, is that the film would devolve to an easily imagined proud and dignified British drama with a stiff upper lip; obsessed with its history and the tiny details which surround it. Again, I was pleasantly surprised. David Seidler wisely chooses to give little significance to the history, instead just concentrating on the characters and their development. This is part of what the film does fairly well. Firth’s character is a man who seems either forced or desperate to inhabit the proverbial royalty that is expected of him, but at heart he is a man of simple and mellow tastes. The contrasting buddy is Geoffrey Rush, who goes against what is expected of him, and is proud of his apparent eccentricity, replying ‘I take that as a complement’ when Firth notes his uncouth behaviour. The art direction too reflects the tenuous historical significance, going for a slightly more stylised look than expected. It’s still clearly Britain, and clearly royal, with opulent clothes and palaces that would have been expected. However certain sets, including the misty streets of London carry an almost haunting quality that gives the film a remarkable sense of place. The mist that covers the streets centres out the two characters walking through it, while also omitting light onto them. It feels a little like David’ Finchers usual lighting style played in reverse.

So far this review has been written in tone of a gushing critic, who just can’t wait to explain to you the artfully tuned aspects, and exclaim how it’s one of the very best of this year! But alas no, that is not the case, though the film is certainly good.

Though a shiningly well-presented film, whose script bristles with deft world-play and humour, is at heart a fairly banal story. It’s furthered only by actors working with hearty dialogue, and not by the director infusing a unique visual sensibility with a well- known tale. Disney have often done this in the past, returning to their simple themes in varyingly creative ways. Tom Hooper allows the film to sit sleepily on the actors, giving them the power, as opposed to make things feel rich with cinematic flow. The exceptions are the speeches themselves, in which the direction thrusts in with full force, turning those scenes into agonizingly tense moments, working with Firth’s tremendous performance to create scenes that very much capture the trepidation and burgeoning stress that resides in public speaking/performance (I’ve felt it) Unfortunately the speeches play little to the films overall attempts at reaching narrative substance. It’s squarely tries to make Firth out as an ‘ordinary man’, and in doing so the film isn’t either hot or cold. The ‘misguided ordinary man’ tale doesn’t ever find a moment to really surprise us with profound insight, never daring to be intensely moving or despairing. Combine this with a formulaic plot, and you have a king who by the end isn’t all that interesting. The script and actors are too charming for us not to feel invested, but the solemn direction of making us try to see the king as an everyman just isn’t all that insightful or interesting. It is rather unfair for me to criticize the direction of a film in this manner, after all, it is what it is, and I should try to measure that film against what it’s trying to be, rather than what I want it to be. But the formulaic plot makes it very difficult to think of this as much more than light entertainment (barring the incredible speech scenes) and also because the customary nature of Firth’s character is drawn attention to earlier in the film. It is done so by a fantastic Guy Pearce, who seems to have walked in from a better film.

Mr.Pearce plays Prince/King Edward VIII, and does so with subtly eccentric demeanour that pervades every line, even the most sincere. I felt both cold and sympathetic towards him, his dissonance over his questionable love and what Britain want from him is jarring in a way that having a speech impediment simply can’t match. Even if you are the King. So when he gets whisked away, the focus pulling onto Firth, I feel like the carpet has been swept away from beneath my feet somewhat. Firth’s story is ceaselessly watchable, but goddamit, I want to see Guy Pearce have dinner with Hitler.

Though ultimately the film is enjoyable, filled with enough humour to counter the heavily earnest scenes. Most of why it’s worth watching comes back down to the tremendous performances by Pearce, Rush, Firth and Helena Bonham Carter. Some of them are even involved in a few moments that may have seemed a tad trite, were it not for their acting grabbing you by the collar, demanding affection. They also very much enjoy their words, every single one feeling milked for its vocal beauty (as is the stammering) On a completely unrelated topic, Stephen Fry once asked ‘But do they froth and bubble at the joy of language?’. The King’s Speech certainly does.

- Taha